This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi! On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:27:39 +0200, Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com> wrote: > On 09/13/2016 04:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > But we could define TARGET_ABSOLUTE_BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT on nvptx instead > > of on x86; is this OK? > > That's what I had in mind. It would be good if Thomas or Nathan could > give this patch a spin, I'm not currently really set up for it. But it > looks like a reasonable try to me. I'm happy to report that this patch doesn't cause any changes in test results both for nvptx target testing, and for nvptx offloading testing. But I have not examined in detail what it actually does ;-) -- currently occupied with too much other work already. > > I'm still not sure why you need an alignment cap on nvptx, but I'm not > > going to worry about it anymore. :) > > I think it was the cfgexpand machinery that uses dynamic allocations > when a variable has a bigger alignment than the stack, and you really > don't want these on ptx. It will be good to document that, next to the definition in gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.h maybe? Grüße Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |